User talk:66.74.176.59

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Intuitive guide to Wikipedia

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but you may want to consider creating an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (66.74.176.59) is used to identify you instead. I was under the impression from other editors that ec was a proper summary edit? "edit copy" And please do refrain from these "suggestions" about a "proper" account. I am using a perfectly proper account as sanctioned by WP and to say otherwise is insulting and a continual sign from the WP community that believes as what you portray yourself as being prejudicial. U know you are not one of those that look upon IP user name contributors as not being the source of so much vandalism but your are otherwise it would not be an issue.66.74.176.59 (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC) In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! BracketBot (talk) 02:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Africa Movie Academy Awards

Do you have proof that some of these categories are going to be discontinued in 2013 and 2014? FYI, the article has a section for discontinued categories. You cannot add original research to articles on Wikipedia per WP:OR. 00:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Where does common sense tell you that original research is being involved when if there is a category for something such as an award that has been given out over time and someone has vreated such an article of section for that award yet no where except by going into the article is there any indication of what years span there is covered by that article or section. That is not original research. That is "X" article or section has "X" information. What point is there to making two moves when one will do? When I am searching out information the last thing I want to have to do is look at EVERYTHING to find out just where I need to look when all it takes is a competent compiler to indicate just what is in the article/section. You do not create an article on "Mental capability" leaving it to the reader to have to go to EVERY article/section on MENTAL CAPABILITY when if there is a "yours" article, a "his" article or a "mine" article. It does not matter when an award was started or when it was discontinued. All that matters is a centralized source of information or routing through that article.66.74.176.59 (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, how do you know that some of the current categories were discontinued this year or last year? If you want to help improve the article, you can include the year in which the AMAA started handing out awards for each category in the current category section. Use the Academy Awards article as a guide. If you choose not to do so, your revision will be reverted sooner or later. Versace1608 (Talk) 00:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

When your article uses indefinite language it is best to describe year span.66.74.176.59 (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

If you add a timespan to each category in the said category, you are implying that the category started X year and ended X year. The categories in the current category section are ongoing. They have not been discontinued and won't be anytime soon. Versace1608 (Talk) 00:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

And when you use indefinite language you are stating that is could or it could not be there?66.74.176.59 (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by that. Let me ask you a simple question. How would you interpret this statement: Michael Jackson's recording career: 1967–2009? Versace1608 (Talk) 01:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• 66.74.176.59, stop making copyedits to articles and in the process distorting the meanings or committing grammatical errors.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 01:09, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

That is not an indefinite statement? What is your point of using a wrong example to state your point.

The following is the use of two examples of indefinite language. If you are unable to see that and the confusing that can result when someone is seeking out particular year range(s) of information then I really do not know what I can help you with?

"As of 2014, the Africa Movie Academy Awards have approximately 26 categories. Some of these include:[9]"66.74.176.59 (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

If the use of "approximate" and "some" are good indications of what is there then I must have missed a day or two of composition. That is not appropriate to WP standards.66.74.176.59 (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not exactly referring to AMAA article. I mean everyother article you're editing; including I'll Take My Chances and "Cinema of Africa".--Jamie Tubers (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there some type of African continental English or Nigerian English as after reviewing some of the cited sources the publishing was in British spelling but sometimes of a composition style that was absent words to be found in the other types of publications. And then I read the plots iin the film articles and there seems to be something up with those expressions, including capitalization of pronouns, etc that seems rather unexplained from what I have read. Is this common and could someone suggest a master's thesis or dissertation submitted to an African University in English that I could read to get a better understanding about the writing style?66.74.176.59 (talk) 11:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding continued genre changing without discussion or sources. If you choose to continue, as you did at Africa Movie Academy Awards, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Versace1608 (Talk) 01:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

When did bullying become an accepted form of saying you are right and others are wrong. The very use of use a tactic shows that you are point is baseless. Stick to the question at hand.66.74.176.59 (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@66.74.176.59: User: Jamie Tubers just made the right edit to the page. This is what you should have done instead of adding a timespan. Versace1608 (Talk) 01:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The need to change it was recognized and it has been done. My job with that is probably over. Move on please instead of evoking that "you do everything wrong" stance. Okay? I never asked to be your flavor of the day. Just when was it implemented that your decision was right and that it was not necessary for you to change what had been proposed but criticize someone was doing something that in the end was accepted? Your attitude is not appreciated in a cooperative environment.

I don't get you. The changes you made to the article were not right. You were reverted on three different occasions. I asked you a simple question which you refused to answer. No one is trying to evoke anything here. FYI, if an edit of yours was reverted by another user, you must either leave a note on the article's talk page or the user's. If a single user reverts an edit three times in a span of 24 hours, that editor can get block for breaking Wikipedia's WP:3RR. Versace1608 (Talk) 01:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a cooperative effort? If so then stop the attitude and recommend to others what would be appropriate instead of a revert and then move on. You both decided to challenge instead of assist. If you know netter then use that to the benefit of WP. Again, the attitude? That is not needed in a cooperative effort. Reverting is an attitude. It does not take the best to make the article better for WP's sake. Instead it presents your views and actions as mandatory as to be part of the WP community. It does not work that way. Sorry if you feel differently but that is to be expected from those that have worked often and long in that manner in the WP effort. So please, I have moved on because what I encountered has been clarified. Can you move on? Otherwise, you have a problem that the solution of which is within you. MOVE ON! Merely by the perception that you have more experience and/or knowledge or status (within WP) does not mean that you can bully others. Reverting without taking what is good to make the article better is an aggressive move that is tantamount in psychological terms as bullying. The outcome of situation shows that there was a problem with the article, I provided a suggestion and you two reverted w/o taking the good that eventually evolved out of the situation. So. can you see that there was a problem, there were solutions proposed (according to the WP cooperative effort), they were shot down and yet what happened--there was change that supported my original position. You can say and do whatever you want about how you REALLY d=feel about the actions and views of others but I will not stand for being bullied. No person in their right mind would do so. So maybe it best for you to understand that I am not one to let bullying persist. If I see an example of someone being reverted and there being even one gob or usefulness to the proposal of the other I will in most likelihood support the person that has been reverted. That is the WP way of a cooperative effort. Sorry if you disagree with this very fundamental principal of WP. I take the time to work with people, not against them. For me this activity is not for power play. And I will never be treated as someone's flavor of the day.

Your response at the Teahouse

...was probably how I should have framed my response. That said, the editor appears to have expectations about what Wikipedia is about and goals that are not easy to dispel, as they've asked repeatedly about whether they can write about themselves. Tonality and negativity are important factors, but the expectations of the editor and their willingness or ability to reevaluate those expectations are also fairly important in appraising what is really going on. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 06:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

J--I'd like to say more but no problem with me and no need to explain. Hindsight always shows that there can be no problems in the world.66.74.176.59 (talk) 09:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Your edits

You've been making nonconstructive edits on wikipedia for the past few hours, please stop!!! You need to realize that you only make copyedits not just because you can, but to correct grammar (not to introduce more errors like you do) or to make sure sentences conform more with the citation given (and not make it deviate more from its source like in your case). You can also make copyedits to solve ambiguous statements and present a more explicit meaning (not make it more ambiguous). It's like you are doing the opposite; recently you edited Desmond Elliot and removed "10th" from it without even confirming if there's actually a 10th edition or not. You need to realize Wikipedia is not suppose to contain "what you think", but what can be sourced. sometimes too, you replace appropriate sentences with sentences with bad grammar. If you think your edit is proper, discuss it with other editors, instead of readding your reverted edits. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and not a one man's show. If you continue vandalizing articles, your IP may be blocked from editing wikipedia.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 10:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes I did confirm that there is not a 10th edition of a ceremony especially if it was established as an annual event in 2005.66.74.176.59 (talk) 12:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think you did, cos the 10th edition is on wikipedia here, so it's not even far fetched! Anyway, Just take note of what I've said and let's make wikipedia a better platform together. Regards--Jamie Tubers (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, if a ceremony is said in the lede to be "annual" and was started in 2005 then it cannot be an "annual" ceremony therefore the lede is incorrect. That is logic. Sorry if you disagree but is not that the point of correct grammar--logic. And of course facts are logic. One or the other or both are incorrect. I will leave that determination up to you since you have cast yourself in the role of decoder.

• You still don't get it, do you? No one cares about your logic. If wikipedia was operating on personal "logics" of editors, there will be so many unnecessary conflicts of interest. Like in your case; your logic is unreasonable. Now, calm down and start counting one after the other the number of ceremonies that can be held; with the first ceremony holding in 2005.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I get it when a statement is wrong. You may not like it being pointed out but there are many things in life that we do not like and seem to live on. Again, "annual" ceremony started in "2005" and it is "2014". You cannot have 10 annual ceremonies in 9 years. It would seem appropriate that there be an explanation so that at some point if there is a discrepancy it is on record.66.74.176.59 (talk) 13:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Okay, since you seem lazy to do what I asked you, lemme do it for you:

1. 2005 - 1st ceremony
2. 2006 - 2nd ceremony
3. 2007 - 3rd
4. 2008 - 4th
5. 2009 - 5th
6. 2010 - 6th
7. 2011 - 7th
8. 2012 - 8th
9. 2013 - 9th
10. 2014 - 10th

I hope you can now see how skewed your "logic" is.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be missing what has been pointed out about something being wrong. You seem to be fixed on 10 ceremonies and I have raised the question that the lede of an article says that something is annual and it started in 2005 that you cannot have 10 ceremonies without there having been more than one in any 12 month "annual" period. Therefore if there has been a ceremony in a period of time less than 12 months then it has not been annual? Successive, yes, but not annual. Please keep on point and not confuse what point is being made. If the lede in the article says "annual" then that is incorrect. It is difficult enough to explain and have someone understand that there can never be a first annual ceremony of anything because such an event can only become annual with a successor event. Is there at all the possibility of this ending as it is just becoming very much the carousel ride of going up and down and all a round and getting no where. Now it is day break and I am about to get on with watching my flicks which I annually do so on the anniversary of 9/11.66.74.176.59 (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Please don't "fix" redirects

Re: Your recent edits changing links to Biafran War to Nigerian Civil War, please read Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. "Doing so is generally an unhelpful, time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental". DuncanHill (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

IP user identification

PLEASE refrain from appearing prejudicial about my continued WP participant with an IP. Yes, I know about user names and do not have one. That is explanation far more than what the question is worth. Nothing against those that do have a user name. AGAIN -- PLEASE, refrain from appearing prejudicial especially by those that seem to take great pleasure toward those with which they disagree about WP content and attack the IP user for being identified as such.66.74.176.59 (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Helpme tag

Do you still need help, or is it taken care of? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. The person in question has decided to come to the realization that their action was a knee jerk persistent reaction without realizing the content.66.74.176.59 (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Minor Barnstar
		For your help in fixing typos in various lists of shipwrecks. It is appreciated. Mjroots (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; no problem. Just trying to get to those articles that ordinarily do not get reviewed or the content is so tight that people just do not notice it. The only problem I am encountering with the wrecks articles is that it takes such a long time for the acceptance to go through as compared to other articles but I think that the delay is caused by the amount of content. But have yet to finish so there will be more. I just pick a word and go through my formula to catch them.66.74.176.59 (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's down to article size. I'm not sure that splitting would be good though, as individual months do not have the losses that occur during the WWII months. Mjroots (talk) 11:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

José Rizal

Hi, thanks for all your work fixing spelling mistakes. I saw you're edit request on the José Rizal; if you let me know here what the misspelling was then I will fix it. Sarahj2107 (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

"pubilshign" both the jose and the Philippines locked articles have it. Thanks.66.74.176.59 (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Both articles have now been fixed. Sarahj2107 (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I attempt to find some of the more imaginative spellings that ordinarily seem to not make it into the everyday edits--probably since they may be in articles that do not get much traffic or in the coding sections. I do my searches across WP instead of on a single article. It helps to know where on the keyboard are the intended characters and just what gets hit or in a different order.66.74.176.59 (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Zenaida Manfugás

Hello! The article you Zenaida Manfugás you indicated that required citation quotes, originally had it, but another user corrected the spelling of the article, but not copied the addresses of references, but only the numbers that appear in the same article when this was already saved. I got my latest edition of the article but correcting the spelling of the same basing on the modification of the author mentioned. By the way, when you indicate something about an item, indicate only talk page.

Regards!--Isinbill (talk) 11:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit to List of Unfabulous episodes

 Hello. I noticed that you recently made a contribution to the List of Unfabulous episodes article that seemed to be a test. Your test worked! However, test edits on live articles disrupt Wikipedia and may confuse readers. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank goodness you found only one of my many acts of vandalism.66.74.176.59 (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Cluster munition. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Altairisfar (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Altairisfar You will need to be a bit more specific about what it is that you jump to conclusions as to what has been "vandalism", a very recurrently and common message sent to many people from what I see. I would suggest that if there is an issue that needs to be addressed that more than just a "hit the button" response be sent and it appear to be a knee jerk reaction. Editing is not a do as much as possible in as little time as necessary with as little interaction and information transfer to the intended. That just makes any message become redundant and equivalent to spam.66.74.176.59 (talk) 07:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Louis C.K.. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Epicgenius (talk) 22:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Just FYI, "mocks" is not neutral. It seems as though Louis C.K. is being deliberately mean. "Pokes fun at" gives a satirical light.

Although I personally appreciate your edits, some instances of this are wrong. Please also consider what you are doing to the other articles. Epicgenius (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I am going to revert your edits that change "pokes fun at" to "mocks" for now. Like Epicgenius (talk · contribs) said, "mocks" is not neutral. I appreciate your help here, but please be more cautious. Thank you. Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 00:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess my previous edit did not go through but essentially I can only guess that your experience and perception is the root of the intent and meaning of mock and its many forms, as my source says, "to laugh at or make fun of (someone or something) especially by copying an action or a way of behaving or speaking". Seems neutral enough. Does every act of mockery result for denigration? Try not laughing at the act of a comedian. If what is suggested that the act is satirical then maybe satirical or its many forms should have been used instead of a colloquialism.66.74.176.59 (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You know, you can use "satirize" instead. It's not the end of the world if "pokes fun at" is retained. Epicgenius (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I must be missing something. There are many things that I have come to know and to recall is usually via a six degrees of separation strategy. But I can safely said that I was not aware that the sentiment of "the end of the world" has been involved in this issue. This really is not a situation of what is it that "I can use" but "what is of use to the article". Interesting word, "satirize". Sort of similar to the word expressed just previous to your post, "If what is suggested that the act is satirical then maybe satirical or its many forms should have been used ....." But I have the advantage in citing that as I wrote that statement. But then I imagine that there can be situations in which someone is not aware of a particular word and it would be all the more appreciated as an expansion of experience. I now am of the opinion that this has become a carousel--going up and down and all around and getting no where. But then life can be faux real and Scarlet did say that, "Tomorrow is another day." And I follow that with my statement that the world can never end as no one can process the paper work.66.74.176.59 (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I just finished the reversion. Please know that I really appreciate your other edits; it's just that this one wasn't neutral. I recommend that you create an account, so that you can be credited for your edits. Thanks, Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 00:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that when it comes to the "recommendation" to create an account be entered with far more contemplation that what seems to be prevalent in your message. There is nothing to suggest that one's actions in WP are all the legitimate or trustworthy without a "user name" than merely using as what everyone starts in WP when using the site--an IP address. It is basic and interestingly enough, neutral. This is not a personal attack upon you but reiteration of what I have on this very TP put forth for those that find it all that necessary as they have done for all others to do so. Can you accept that, respect that and in the future give it all the more justification just why is it that you advocate that position. Just so that you will know beforehand, "all the benefits ......" is not justification enough for me to be coerced into such an action because my use of WP is not to accumulate "points" or "status". My interaction with WP is served by an IP rather than a user name. And if it is your choice for a user name leave that for your own actions. Other wise the line around the arena of my philosophy in life is crossed, "as long as it does not coerce me, deceive me or injure me then it is to me to decide" and that is justification enough. Again, this is not an attack on those that have chosen a user name, or those that have on the basis that it seemed part of the process. I do not put it outside the chance that offense by some will be taken, but I can live with that as long as what develops is not to me coercive, deceptive or injurious. I address matters this way because it is with the subconscious and small things in life that seem to add up to problems that easily overcome those that had earlier no problem with the situation. Maybe a bit mental but it helps me understand clearly when imposition can be the root of a recommendation.66.74.176.59 (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI one of the main reasons I am recommending an account is that as you become more trusted you can use Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser to make the tedious replacement of words that you are doing easier. Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 01:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

As I though, what do you not understand about my activity within WP and why I use an IP? What essentially you have said is that on behalf of WP those that use an IP are not taken seriously. Is that the function and purpose of a community project? NO! So, please reread what it is that was written and contemplate before responding because I clearly included any possible justification from any user name participant in WP what is the basis of the use of an IP. To me it seems that is difficult to accept but can you? Now as I had hoped with my original statement on my TP and reiterated immediately above, as it concerns the IP issue, leave me in peace. Nothing personal but if a project is community based and there is a "choice" then there should be no difference between an IP or user name participant. I see and your response upholds my experience that it is not. That is unfortunate, and I live with those with a different POV. Life goes on and there are far more significant and important decisions in life.66.74.176.59 (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

"Grow up to .. cm" is correct grammar, your bot-like mass-removal of "up" [1] is not appreciated. Do not do this again. Materialscientist (talk) 08:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Consult Google books or whatever is a grammar authority for you. There is nothing personal here, but bot-like editing and edit warring will result in a routine block. Please behave. Materialscientist (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. You reverted "Grow up to.... in length.", so with the word "length" there, it obviously cannot mean how high the fish is, but must mean "maximum length". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

"Grow up to....." is the statement that has been reinstated rather than reverted. The phrase chosen to more logically represent what best described the situation was "grow to" especially as what was being described was not an "up" direction of growth but an "across" direction. If "up" is used to describe a growth direction other than "up" then that introduces a confusion that is what should be avoided in situations that do not enable you to clarify the mistake. "Materialscientist" is not of the mind that logic is a useful tool for communicating and instead has decided to leave his mind to what his source says is acceptable. But "Materialscientist" wants to advocate those "rules" that others have advocated without regard for logic, much like the person that gets stuck in the mud although it has started to creep over the toe of their shoes. It seems that he is incapable of recognizing the terms "grow upward" and "length-wise" as perfectly logical and useful statements that will stand the test of time.66.74.176.59 (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Nobody will confuse it with height or "across". Saying "grows to" sounds like it must grow to and always grows to a certain length. It is ambiguous. Examine: "Chaetodontoplus melanosoma lives to 100 years of age" vs. "Chaetodontoplus melanosoma lives up to 100 years of age". I think "up to" is better because it means maximum.

Now, about sentences that start with "It seems that he is incapable of...": Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It says "Comment on content, not on the contributor." That is the second sentence and that is policy, not a guideline.

Anyway, we're all friends here and this is not a huge deal. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe 66.74.176.59 sees in those phrases a verb "grow up", whereas there is none, it is "grow" + "up to". Materialscientist (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Materialscientist has much to learn about the world but if it is presumption that is being acted upon then that would explain the haste that makes waste. "Maybe 66.74.176.59 sees in those phrases ......" I am blind therefore do not see. I know, you do not know me. I know, you are embarrassed. "Friends" is a too-widely used and possibly confused word. Even, Churchill had a comeback about "grammer". You should hear it someday.66.74.176.59 (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014

Hello, I'm Vin09. An edit that you recently made to Ongole seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Vin09 (talk) 05:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	For your recent works to fix WP:OVERLINKs. Why don't you create an account? Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

For your reference per previously relayed info on my TP: IP user identification -- PLEASE refrain from appearing prejudicial about my continued WP participant with an IP. Yes, I know about user names and do not have one. That is explanation far more than what the question is worth. Nothing against those that do have a user name. AGAIN -- PLEASE, refrain from appearing prejudicial especially by those that seem to take great pleasure toward those with which they disagree about WP content and attack the IP user for being identified as such.66.74.176.59 (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)66.74.176.59 (talk) 11:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

You brought up an interesting point....

Hi 66, I hope you don't mind, but I'd like to continue our discussion on "grow to" vs "grow up to" since I can't seem to find any "formal" explanation. I've included your last post for convenience. Interesting note about "up to" and it indicating a "maximum" and thus justifying an acceptability. Growth can never be absolutely identified and only averaged. Therefore, what is justified based on max is sort of misleading. Maybe to make a statement about size should include language to the effect that it is an average. I believe that in many instances the phrase "grow to" was within a greater phrase of "can grow to". I would think that any interpretation about misunderstanding and confusion with "all" instances of that which has grown. The problem with these types of discussions is that if you rely on what appears on the TP then you might be drawn to a conclusion that is absent all aspects without going to the source

I agree that the phrase "grow to" was, and should be within a greater phrase. The more I studied it, the more I felt it needed correction. Therefore, as a result of being on your diet, the fish can now "grow up to 10 ft. in length and weigh as much as 300 lbs". Thank you for indulging me. Atsme☯^Consult 12:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

edit summaries

66.74.176.59 can you please use edit summaries ? Thanks Happy holidays.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

You must have me confused with someone else. Unless you are more specific you will have to point out when an edit summary was not use.66.74.176.59 (talk) 01:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Many of the edits from this IP address have edit summaries that just say "edit", which isn't very helpful. Most of the edits are very helpful little changes but a little more explanation would be nice. For example with this edit a more descriptive edit summary might be something like "spelling and white space". Yaris678 (talk) 21:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Your edits to Raid of Ruthven

Can you explain this edit more fully? Specifically:

• Why have you created a red link from the word "discomfited"? It doesn't look like a word that could be the title of an article. Do you mean to link to the Wiktionary article wikt:discomfit?
• What is unclear about "£33,000 Scots?" The currency referred to is the Pound Scots. Would you be happy if it was explained with a link? e.g. "£33,000 Scots"?
• Why the need to highlight the unusual spelling of the word "possibilitie"? There are plenty of other unusual spellings in that quote. It is from 1582.

Yaris678 (talk) 15:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

January 2015

Hello, I'm K6ka. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Russian grammar— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 00:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

That seems like something went terribly wrong and as not noticed at the time.66.74.176.59 (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page List of shipwrecks in 1790 has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you.

• I refer to this edit with the summary "ul redunadant references" (which I took to mean "cull redundant references"), but no references were touched. Please be accurate with your edits summaries. Mjroots (talk) 08:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Lists of shipwrecks

As you insist on delinking valid links, I will raise the issue for the wider community to discuss at WT:SHIPWRECK. Mjroots (talk) 08:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Whilst the discussion is going on, and as a courtesy, would you please not continue delinking, such as this edit. On my part, I'm not reverting previous edits you made. Once consensus is achieved, normal editing can resume. As I said before, we are now at the D part of WP:BRD. Please feel free to comment at the discussion at the Wikiproject. Mjroots (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome!

SatuSuro--I hope you do nit find this personally upsetting but could you do some due diligence before you make a fool of yourself and shove absolutely every one of your helpful hints up your arse!

Especially with the following to be found on my user talk page:

"IP user identification[edit]

PLEASE refrain from appearing prejudicial about my continued WP participant with an IP. Yes, I know about user names and do not have one. That is explanation far more than what the question is worth. Nothing against those that do have a user name. AGAIN -- PLEASE, refrain from appearing prejudicial especially by those that seem to take great pleasure toward those with which they disagree about WP content and attack the IP user for being identified as such.66.74.176.59 (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)"

I do not find your hints any more useful than the single ply that I use. I have been a, as you say, "Wipedidian" which may be a decision I might change if I were to continue getting messages such as yours about becoming part. It is not your role to invite someone or to confirm that someone is part--that is the right of the person.66.74.176.59 (talk) 00:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit to O. H. Frazier

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! pcfan500 (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you a comediene or some other type of entertainer because I can hardly hold my stomach from ache as to why keeping a sentence in two totally separate sections is an improvement. No need to explain as so many of you WP editors seem to have a mind of your own making and a sense of justification that is beyond reason.66.74.176.59 (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Please do your due diligence before sending these rather offensive messages:

IP user identification[edit]

PLEASE refrain from appearing prejudicial about my continued WP participant with an IP. Yes, I know about user names and do not have one. That is explanation far more than what the question is worth. Nothing against those that do have a user name. AGAIN -- PLEASE, refrain from appearing prejudicial especially by those that seem to take great pleasure toward those with which they disagree about WP content and attack the IP user for being identified as such.66.74.176.59 (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

---

Hello, I'm EmadIV. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Thomas Green Fessenden— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. →εϻαdιν ^ΤαΙk _{Ͼδητrιβμτιoης} 22:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a typo correction and an obvious one at that. There is no issue with this user who keeps correcting typos. This is a good service. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. It was clearly a typo and why the other person justified it on the grounds states was nothing but ridiculous. I went ahead and redid my change and it seems that it has been left along. All I can imagine is that the person for whatever reason did not bother to read the change. It would have been a different matter if it was a sic but it was not. I have found on occasion there are a small amount of WP participants that do not let stand corrections unless it is published under their action. To me that is a for of bullying. It does not belong here. There was one particular participant that would base the integrity of their change on longevity of what appears in the article. After a few thousand typo corrections I was able to get across to the others that letting something stand on it having been included some time back was irrelevant as edits to articles can be far and few between and if there is no traffic to an article then no one is aware of what mistakes there may be. All I know is that I am not here to challenge anyone and have the articles appear as best they can regardless as insignificant the traffic to the article. The quality of these articles has to be so that people with other languages or interests can understand the context. I have found quite a few articles dealing with India etc that need a go over because they put across the connotation but not in the proper style--although I have been accused of not doing that as well. I also feel that when an article does not express the subconscious information about topic that it needs to be included for those that are not as aware of the subject as would others such as for the US-football and for Great Britain-rugby and cricket. Well, so much for that and have good one.66.74.176.59 (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Kicks After the Siren

Yes, I can now see that your edits are legitimate, my apologies for the implications.

My mistake came in mainly looking at your user-name (an IP address rather than an account name) and didn't take it seriously. I find that most "vandalism" edits are committed by users using only IP addresses and I believe I rushed my edits here. I notice from your talk page that other editors have the same problem with your user-name. I'd suggest creating an identifiable user-name. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 20:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Perry Middlemiss--The following is the sentiment that is shared by your efforts at this useless reverting. I would suggest that you PHUCQUE OPH if you find it unnecessary as a user name contributor to WP especially in reviewing what has been done and instead present as vial a hatred by all other WP user name contributors towards those of us that contribute to WP using IP user names. So, again, PHUCQUE oph with your vial and prejudicial attitude! Look at what you think needs to be done before you act so stupidly! But predominately, just PHUCQUE OPH!66.74.176.59 (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I can see that a jack ass has more sense that what is shown by your RUSH etc at conclusions based on not reviewing the record but reacting to your own very PREJUDICIAL view that will never leave WP to generate into a organization without prejudice, especially amongst those that find they are the police to the world.

Your apology is vial, is not an apology and will never be accepted as a apology especially when it just goes to show that your own prejudices are the crux of YOUR continued problems of IP usernames. I did not RUSH to publish misleading corrections. I did not RUSH to not review the record in question. I did not RUSH to pass on u unjustifiable reasons for why I should change when in fact it is you and all the others that carry that prejudicial view should be the ones to change and to portray the problem as mine is just unbelievable! If your view were to be acceptable then I guess Goering would have suggested to Hitler that the Jews change their religion? so that they would no longer have the problems they had with the Germans and the Axis powers? No, what is found on my talk page is not that I am wrong fro using an IP username but you and others thinking that IP usernames are all vandals when in fact your views are so prejudicial that you jump to conclusions and by open confession say you never have reviewed the facts! You call yourself a legitimate contributor? I would hate to have you testify for me at some life threatening legal proceedings. Please, never in the future feel in the least compelled to communicate with me about your inadequacies. GO AWAY!66.74.176.59 (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

And with your bating record you are in the least of advantageous to even consider advising me on any thing.66.74.176.59 (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It is just plain wrong!

"manipulaton" (3)66.74.176.59 (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

For this Special:diff/645535455, it was nice seeing IP user editing like you, might I suggest you to create an account? If not, please do stay and help English Wikipedia anyway. Again, thank you.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 19:55, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you but let me direct you to another portion of my TP: "IP user identification: PLEASE refrain from appearing prejudicial about my continued WP participant with an IP. Yes, I know about user names and do not have one. That is explanation far more than what the question is worth. Nothing against those that do have a user name. AGAIN -- PLEASE, refrain from appearing prejudicial especially by those that seem to take great pleasure toward those with which they disagree about WP content and attack the IP user for being identified as such.66.74.176.59 (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)66.74.176.59 (talk) 03:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes of course, I agree with you, nowadays people/wikipedian prejudiced towards IP editor, hence your edit show them that IP editor can make good edit. I am happy to see your edit on Wikipedia.--AldNon^Ucallin?☎ 11:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

"Edit" edits

Hi, thank you for your edits tightening the language of articles. But please note that "edit" isn't a helpful edit summary. All edits are edits. Please write something explanatory. See WP:EDSUM for the purpose of edit summaries. Bishonen | talk 08:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC).

Brtish

British, er, apologies for spreading that typo everywhere. ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 08:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. As others have said before. Please fix this. :) Thanks Bobherry talk 23:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your pointless edit summaries

I want to reinforce Bishonen's and Bobherry's remarks above on 10 and 16 February concerning your unhelpful edit summaries. It is a waste of other editors' time to furnish the pointless and meaningless edit summary "public school thing" when correcting typos from "Britsh" to "British" as you did to 139 articles two days ago. The correct and helpful edit summary would be "Correcting a typo" or "...misspelling". Furthermore, the irrelevant phrase "public school" is ambiguous anyway since it means opposite things in different countries. — O'Dea (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Edits to Mexican footballers

Please note that in introductions, we describe them as 'Mexican professional footballers who play for [TEAM] as a [POSITION], not 'Mexican football [position]'. GiantSnowman 13:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This points out a fundamental problem with many non-Brit/US related articles that why should "professional" be pointed out when in other pro-level articles there is no need to say since by having an article they are at a level of play that should be professional and linking the league reinforces that fact subconsciously. European footballers are not treated in this manner probably because the subject is so well-known by people that is the same with Am footballers not having "professional" attached since they belong and referred to their team being NFL, etc. If you look at the complete statement it includes the league which should with a person's experience in that WP string of those articles subconsciously indicates that it is professional level not amateur. Even in Europe it is more likely that someone would know that if they play in a particular tournament subconsciously indicates without having to state so it is professional. If it is mentioned enough, people not familiar with the subject will without having to follow links know which L/$ level that someone plays. I make reference to "nationality/type of football/league type /position" but I would suggested that for consistency in sporting articles especially football that "professional" no longer be included and instead the referencing to amateur/L-$ become subconsciously indicated by referencing the league association particularly as the team articles can make it rather difficult for the non-knowing person to know that it is a "professional" level competitor. Also, there are currently a variety of styles of Mexican footballer articles' intros present in WP.66.74.176.59 (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

TLDR, but to answer your query about "professional" - techncially that is the claim to notability and I feel it is important to state that in the intro. However that is not required, and was the least of the problems with your change in wording. GiantSnowman 17:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you want to make a point jump to the extreme with the world falling apart. A person's notability in football is not that it is professional but that they themselves are great at it and are part of a time that is great at it. What should be of concern is what level and which organization are they under. If that information is presented in a routine manner then people who are not familiar with a article subject will know how significant is something or someone. That is the purpose of the encyclopedic WP, not necessarily the footballer fan that probably already has a hold on the subject. This is particularly to be found in subjects that function under a different system than that of one's own country (in the case of Brit/Am, language) and the remainder of the world that does not function under that condition. That is a problem when someone from someplace that has or is dominate in the world has the misplaced perception that world revolves around them instead of understanding a subject from that which is expressed in appropriate terms in the language or origin.66.74.176.59 (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, TLDR, however, yes playing in a fully-professional league is what makes a footballer notable... GiantSnowman 19:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

To be

The Verb “To Be” may of be some help. --I am One of Many (talk) 07:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC) You'll have to address it on the TP of the article. I would like to read your discussion.66.74.176.59 (talk) 07:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I notice you've made the same change to about 140 articles. It would be awkward and repetitive to follow the letter of WP:BRD and discuss it at 140 talk pages so I've opened a discussion on the talk page of Wikipedia's Manual of Style instead, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Is or was. Please could you join the discussion there, so that we may reach a consensus before you make any more such changes? NebY (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Sisyphus. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. NebY (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Please read the edit summaries to learn that this is currently under discussion.66.74.176.59 (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Warning

Many of your edits are improvements. Thank you. But you're editing too fast. (Such as, leaving the phrase "being broadcast on to" behind.[2]) And, presumably to save time, you're still using the meaningless "edit" edit summaries, and other unhelpful edit summaries, that you have several times been nicely requested to stop using. You haven't even responded to these requests — again, presumably, to save time. This WP:IDHT behavior wastes the time of other editors, you know. Since making nice won't do it, I'm hereby warning you: please improve your edit summary usage per the advice you've been getting, or you will be blocked from editing. Bishonen | talk 13:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC).

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

I agree with the above editor. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Checking in.

Hello again! Just checking in. I see your making edits EXTREMELY fast. I recommend getting a account. But I see your still not using proper summaries. User:Callanecc can you please assist us here? Good Luck! I'll check back in soon! Bobherry talk 21:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Advice and seeking help

Hi, I can see that you are quite enthusiastic about Wikipedia and that is great. However, I don't think you are a native speaker of English. Am I correct? Sometimes non-native speakers of any language don't quite know how words work in some contexts in their non-native language. This can lead to grammatical misunderstandings. I have also noticed that when you decide to correct a "mistake", you rapidly make changes in many articles. When you do that and you have introduced a grammatical error, that creates a lot of work for other editors to correct. Before you engage in other mass changes, you should ask other editors (including myself) whether the changes you propose are actually correct. A general rule of thumb would be that if lots of other editors have used a particular construction in many articles, it is most likely correct and a mistake to change. I don't want to discourage you from editing, but I think it would be best to recognize possible limitations and ask others for advise before making mass changes. --I am One of Many (talk) 02:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, if one should decide to stake their reputation on the asking of a question it might be purposeful to ask those others more able to express themselves before the act. You have discourage me merely by the fact of insulting me twice about writing skills, and my nationality or language of origin. My people have been currently in place for over 500 years and previous to take just as many before they moved so does that give you an indication that I am not a recent user of the language? You make your statements too personal and should learn to use the neutral approach so that you do not appear to be a perpetuator of ignorance of the world or have a limited desire to get outside of your environment. There never should have been the occasion for you to send what amounts to an apology/help message if there never had been made the misstated views. As I have said with the increased use of the internet, why make two when one message should do. That is not meant to be keep your message to one but if you misstate yourself and in the process insult someone then you have made one two many messages. These messages are out there and just as a parent will always be a parent and a child will always be a child; that cannot be changed by any one. Insults are sent, and the same exists about those messages--no one can change the fact that they were sent.

I am not surprised by the statements made. My training has exposed me to that years ago. I am not surprised that the same issues seem to develop generation after generation because there are new untrained minds. It just amazes me that people who hold themselves in such great esteem find it so difficult to express themselves so that they to some degree are aware that if there is enough of a pile you are more likely to find what you want. But if all the people throwing into the pile are trained the way that are you then at what point do you question if there might be another point, slim, but another point. Instead, the rule is establish by practice and it must stay.

My mind has already been poisoned by your actions. Let WP hope that it does not happen to others. Do not think that you can go into my contri list and determine that I am not of my current nationality or language. I see a topic and then I go into it to learn more about the world. I hate it when the terms of a country have to take a back seat to those translations for the English/American readers merely for what, in the "polite" way, seems to be for convenience. Sometimes I wonder if it is not for prejudice. No wonder why particular countries get the reputation of being self-absorbed and ignorant of the world.66.74.176.59 (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

My remarks were in no way intended to insult you. The problem is that many of your edits and arguments for these edits fail to reveal an adequate understanding of English. I have offered to help by providing advice and I know others will to. Again, I don't want to come across as rude or impolite, but it is an issue we need to resolve. --I am One of Many (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The unanimity of the internet should not be considered a condition within an environment that encourages being a day late and a dollar short.66.74.176.59 (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Parlement

Parlement is a correct French spelling. Please desist from altering every mention of it to an incorrect version.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parlement — Preceding unsigned comment added by ClaireWalzer (talk • contribs) 12:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I do hope that this is not an indication of an over zealous use of "vandalism" at every twist and turn? It shows a trait of "knee-jerkery".66.74.176.59 (talk) 11:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, 66.74.176.59. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by ///EuroCarGT 03:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Ranveer Singh - direct quotation

Hi, FYI, in this edit you made changes to a direct quote from a Variety writer. It was reverted by another user for hopefully obvious reasons. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. totally unintended and I tried to avoid them.66.74.176.59 (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Árpád Fekete. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. GiantSnowman 13:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I would venture to say that vandalism seems to fly off your tongue far more quicker an any other qualifier.66.74.176.59 (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe don't

Hello. You made a very minor edit to The English Patient (film), and for some reason felt it necessary to lecture everyone involved with the page with the following: "what is termed "research" had been in the past a mix of what appeared in the original book and what people thought was in the film. So let us stick with what WP does best--tell the truth." I'm not sure where you got this (especially the idea that what WP does best is "tell the truth"), but maybe don't patronize and condescend to your fellow editors? Thank you.--TEHodson 02:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The minor change was just part of what was an attempt to present just what is part of the plot and the revert was based on what previous "research" had been presented. The fact of the matter is that the article in its current state is far didderent when it concerns content than what it for some time--I would assume that if someone says that what exists previously should remain solely based on what has been there (especially for this article) that this justification is somewhat lame (just as a previous editor was indicating for their edits). There seemed to be some transfer of book info to the movie; fortunately a lot of that seemed to get removed from the film article. If other editors deem it necessary to lecture me then it is fair game so maybe in future when it is decided to justify something then the full implications should be considered. That is not a lecture, that is thinking through your actions. That seems to be missing with how some editors express themselves with subconscious content. So please do not find it necessary to tell me just what it is that I will say and where if it complies with the standards of WP--the truth. I do not expect for you to accept that but that is testiment to our differing welthenschuanngs. It is unfortunate that the edit summary is not appreciate but I am not responsible for anyone's level of intolerance. That is coming from someone that continues to use the IP address as my user name and has continually been lectured about establishing the other form of username as some form of legitimacy. I take that as an institutional form of intolerance--again, not my weltenschuanng. I hope this is not about to turn into a carousel ride of up and down and all around and getting no where because I find that there is no need to change my posiition as long as what I express in the WP article is the truth. Just because others may percieve something as the truth does not in time play it out as such. History tells us that.66.74.176.59 (talk) 09:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Your comment is pretty incoherent, but I think you said something about how The English Patient film article used to full of inaccurate information, which is true. I rewrote it a few months ago, and removed all the original research and a bunch of other nonsense about biplanes. The article is now much shorter, but it no longer includes any of one particular editor's ideas about what the film was about, what it meant, etc. That said, you really should not use an edit summary to lecture other editors, even if you see some people doing it--they shouldn't do it, either. Just keep your edit summary brief and to the point. Thanks.--TEHodson 03:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Your efforts to reform are ill-founded and seems like an attempt to pick a fight. When there are editors with administrator status reverting edits merely because of some perception they have then it sometimes seems necessary that reiterate the "community" aspect of WP instead of the self-possiveness they persist displaying. If OR or POV was totally removed then that should apply to behind German lines as there is no indication that he ever was especailly as Almasy says before his treak to seek help that who knows what military he may encounter. As for any "recent" removal of information, what was present then is far from what was there a year or two ago that obviously to any one that read the book, was never part of the movie. I rest on the sole foundation of WP--the truth. There is absolutely no reason in the quest of WP but to present the truth rather than rest on what another editor continually sought to support their position--longevity of text was sufficeint to justify retaining text that was not correct.66.74.176.59 (talk) 05:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI: WP:TRUTH --I am One of Many (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Being a follower of why do with two when one will do, I do not open up links the sentiment they may contain should have been included in the original message and using the link as an expansion on the theme.66.74.176.59 (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Age/aged

Once again you are vandalising text across a number of pages with your own (mistaken) interpretation of English grammar, replacing the adjective "aged" with the noun "age".

This is the link to Merriam-Webster's page on aged: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aged Examples of AGED - a group of men aged between 20 and 30

And from OED: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/aged Definition of aged in English: adjective 1eɪdʒd [PREDICATIVE OR POSTPOSITIVE] Having lived for a specified length of time; of a specified age: young people aged 14 to 18

Please educate yourself on correct usage before engaging in further vandalism. Thanks. ClaireWalzer (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The following edits have now been undone by User:I_am_One_of_Many:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=InterRail&diff=prev&oldid=654165827

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eurail&diff=prev&oldid=654164596

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Resistance_%28socialist_youth_organisation%29&diff=prev&oldid=654164088

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1820_United_States_Census&diff=prev&oldid=654164529

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Junior_Pairs_Championship&diff=prev&oldid=654163994

I have edited two links.

First this, where you altered aged with the comment: "it does not take a gentics test to be eleigble; only citizenship" (sic)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Speedway_Under_21_Championship&diff=prev&oldid=654405214

Also I have edited this article after you requested "clarification" with the comment "I wonder how long a human body should be aged for consumption?" which I assume was an attempt at a humorous comment. This is unhelpful.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=William_Birkett_%28cricketer%29&diff=prev&oldid=654405784

ClaireWalzer (talk) 06:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I see that you are another to use the term "vandalism" with a swiping brush of a street sweeper as concerns the cricketer. That is not vandalism but a disagreement as to how attention is drawn to additional need of clarification which according to the same pattern of others would have been deemed an ill attempt to improve the article by whomever had made the previous addition to the article. Use vandalism with care otherwise it make you look as if the move is on auto-pilot and a knee jerk reaction. At least the ommission has been addressed albeit with much unneeded alarm66.74.176.59 (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Your edits are clearly intended as vandalism. After posting this incoherent response you made the following additional vandalising edit, changing "Under 26" to "Under aged 26" (sic):

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=InterRail&diff=prev&oldid=654465599

Your edit summary reads "(w/o aged under 26 can mean that someone is under a the # 26 rather of particular age; if sum1 writes "18" on piece of paper & stands on it they can say they r of legal age or over 18)".

This edit has been undone by User:Helenabella

Are you seriously indicating that you think standing on a piece of paper on which you have written "18" means you can say you "r of legal age or over 18"?

Please limit yourself to editing Wikipedia in your own language until your English is of a sufficient standard and you have matured sufficiently to make useful edits. ClaireWalzer (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)